The announcement that MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow would be one of the moderators of the first set of Democratic debates was greeted with derision among some conservatives on Twitter, but it’s actually a good thing.
As a reminder, with a field of over 20 candidates, Democrats are facing an even more difficult position staging debates early on than Republicans were in 2016. To avoid the appearance of a undercard/main event that Republicans had when they held both events on the same night and divided the field by polling numbers, Democrats will have two debates, with 10 candidates on each night, and randomly pick the participants. The two debates will be hosted by NBC on June 26 and 27.
Maddow will be one of the moderators along with Savannah Guthrie, Lester Holt, Chuck Todd, and José Diaz-Balart. The critique of having Maddow moderate is the assumption that an ideologically liberal moderator will ask softball questions of the Democratic candidates. But that need not be the case.
I have long been a believer that ideological media figures immersed in the issues of concern to their audiences can help raise issues that would not occur to other reporters. This is especially important during a primary, when the purpose of the debate is to draw candidates out on their differences and help a party’s voters determine who should be their nominee.
A debate partially moderated by, say, Mark Levin, would involve more pointed and specific questions on immigration and border security that addresses the concerns of talk radio listeners then, say, Lester Holt.
Maddow co-moderated a 2016 Democratic debate, and was mocked for hugging Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., when it was over. But the truth is that she asked pointed questions of both candidates (for instance, on Clinton’s speaking fees, whether Sanders’ definition of progressive was unrealistic, what they see as the role of the federal government in responding to the Flint, Mich., water situation, troops in Syria, and so forth).
Back in 2016, Maddow and Todd had a bit of an easier time, because there were only two candidates left by Feb. 4 and it was at a point in the race (just between Iowa and New Hampshire), when Sanders and Clinton were itching to go after each other. So they were able to step back for a lot of the time and watch the fireworks. This time, it will be a bit of a challenge, with 20 candidates, over two nights. It’s at a point in the race where the candidates will be reluctant to attack each other, and there won’t be as much time to draw out any given candidate on a question.
Maddow should use the debate as an opportunity to press the candidates on issues that are of concern to her liberal audience that may not obviously occur to her co-moderators. And hopefully the model of having some members of the ideological media moderate primary debates becomes a more common practice.
In my ideal world, primary debates would have sharp questioners such as Jake Tapper and Chris Wallace paired with ideological media figures of both sides of the political spectrum. Yes, to me it would be interesting to see how adroit candidates are when responding to questions from ideological opponents as well, because it provides an insight into how they may handle the general election.
